In the formatting, it looks like Vik's answers to 6 and 7 copied over with one running into the other. Apologies to Vik. Here are her answers to 6 and 7 correctly formatted.
thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President Question #6-- Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate? I don’t think CEDA should regulate argument content beyond established evidentiary ethics considerations. Fundamentally, that is not how the activity is perceived in “CEDA” historically. Debaters can debate about the content issues – and I’ll double check the profanity K links are in the backfile project. I think there are different educational models that debate can follow, and the history of CEDA is one of open discourse. I think content limitations would be more appropriate in the educational and organizational model that the ADA is founded upon (for the record, it’s rule #6 in their standing rules that says T is a voter, although the criteria for voting on a kritik advocated by the aff are not listed. Uniqueness and alternatives seem to only be a burden of the neg). I think harassment issues are separate from content issues. Question #7-- What should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do in the next five years to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do to foster our students' development of producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying "implications?" (Hi Jimbo.) The best place to work with the NDT on the issues of convergence and electronic eloquence are at the topic meeting, which is our only "official" cooperative action and which has seen the most progress in these fields over the last 3 years. Using the Topic Meeting, the CEDA Summer Meeting (and potentially NCA), and the upcoming conference hosted by Wake may be the best option to serve as a "testing ground" in these fields. More students, perhaps using the Presidential Intern model established in 2005, could be involved in the technological production aspects of these existing approaches, rather than simply seen as a "host" duty. I think the biggest obstacle for CEDA programs in this area is that what we are seeing is a reflection of the larger comm community focus - it's departmental and curricular priorities. I think encouraging programs to engage in public debates about issues of importance to their communities, and to explore inter-school electronic debates, as some programs do, may be the best approach within those limitations. One other suggestion would be to target emerging programs or those with reduced budgets to explore electronic production to expand debate opportunities from their school to other campuses. Finally, I think it is important to emphasize the eloquence and production value component of any such initiatives - the point is to develop better skills than most amateur youTube postings, right? Doing production for production's sake is irrelevant unless actual skills are developed. Multiple individuals have advocated positive PR measures for our activity, including promoting debates, advertising our "success stories", and using our awards ceremonies as source material for positive press. These initiatives would also be excellent opportunities to provide production experiences for our community in conjunction with broader goals. _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
